Football Season 2013/2014

[Charlie]

Gouffran is offside by a country mile and is interfering (he has to side step to not get struck by the ball). It's definitely a debateable decision, not sure it's awful though.

 

Absolutely lethal strike and it gets ruled out because the Man City players essentially manage to scare the referee. Rarely had the atmosphere feel so toxic at St James Park.

 

Going by FIFA rules the player was onside.

 

"Intefering with play" means:

 

- (1) Playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

- (2) Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movememnt.

- (3) Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

“Gaining an advantage by being in that position”

means:

 

- (4) Playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or

crossbar, having previously been in an offside position.

- (5) Playing a ball, that rebounds to him off an opponent,

having previously been in an offside position.

 

For sake of discussion I've marked each points in the law 1-5.

 

1) He did not play or touch the ball.

2) The player in question did not block the view of the keeper or prevent an opponent from playing it.

3) This is questionable but dodging to the side, in my opinion, should not be distracting a goal keeper and shuold not be deceiving the goalkeeper as generally it is the oppositions job to make the ball go into the net.

4) Did not play/rebound him.

5) did not play/rebound him.

 

From the FIFA rules above, the goal should have stood.

[James]

Cracking Liverpool game, I have said this before, but this is a game we would have lost last season easy, but going forward were much better now. Strurridge get's an assist and a goal coming back from injury, excellent!! Defensively was a slight worry and Gerrard had an awful game, probably at fault for two of the goals and gave the ball away so much.

 

Villa next week at home, should be an easy three points (probably lose)

[Zell]

I think the benefit of the doubt should go to Gouffran because he was clearly trying to get out of the way and thereby making an effort to not interfere with the play.

 

The question I would ask myself as a referee is: if the player had not been standing there, would the play have happened any differently? In this case, I don't think so.

 

That being said, I can understand why the decision was made and I don't agree that it's an "awful" decision.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I haven't checked the incident, but I'll say this:

 

The fact that so many fans and players are up in arms about this is because the rules aren't transparent. When you're playing a game, everybody needs to know the rules by which their playing, otherwise you have anarchy and wrong decisions are being made. The fact that the rules have changed over the years and have become unnecessarily complicated just adds to it. Keep it simple. There's no transparency and you have nobody left in the game (referees and players) who know the rules. It shouldn't be this way.

[Ramar]

- (3) Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

3) This is questionable but dodging to the side, in my opinion, should not be distracting a goal keeper and shuold not be deceiving the goalkeeper as generally it is the oppositions job to make the ball go into the net.

 

This is the grey and debateable area. I can't see how standing in the flight of the ball and then moving out of it isn't destracting for the keeper.

 

Great post btw Charlie.

[pratty]

This is the controversy they've started by changing the offside rule from black and white to phases/daylight/interfering. It only leads to different interpretation and inconsistency.

 

I've only seen that gif of it, but I think the goal should stand. I don't think the offside player affects the keeper's ability to save it.

 

That said I personally I prefer the new rule, even when it appears to be inconsistant, it leads to more goals which was surely the point in the first place. Peope only complain about it when it goes against them, saying things like "If you're on the pitch then you're interfering with play, full stop." But it's a farce that a goal could be disallowed for offside when an 'attacking' player is offside completely univolved by the corner flag.

 

Nice win for Liverpool, a bit nervey when Stoke fought back. We got lucky with a debatable pen. It wasn't a dive, but I think someone like Howard Webb wouldn't have given it. The class of SAS was the difference today.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Right, I've just seen the disallowed goal. It's a right mess and the problem is that over the years nobody has really come out and clarified when somebody is "interfering" with play.

 

In my opinion, if I was a goalkeeper and somebody was standing in an offside position (for example, if I were on the front post and the player was on the back post in an offside position), I would still be "aware" that they were there...so, to me, they would be interfering, because the simple fact is that they are there.

 

However, according to the rules (and depending on which official you talk to) it probably wouldn't be offside.

 

Basically, the rules are shit and nobody knows what they're doing. Why can't we just go back to before and say that if somebody is in an offside position, they are offside and no goals are given? So much easier to referee that way.

[Ramar]

In other poor decisions. That Liverpool penalty. Softer than the generation game's cuddly toy.

[Fierce_LiNk]

In other poor decisions. That Liverpool penalty. Softer than the generation game's cuddly toy.

 

It's soft, but there's at least one of those types of penalties given every week for different teams in different leagues. Again, down to the officiating. The standard these days is very poor. Not saying the players are totally blameless, because they're not making it easy for them. However, the fact that nothing has been done to sort out this "going-down-softly" bollocks is shiiiite.

 

Why did football seem so much better when we were kids? Hardly any diving, no refereeing bullshit, none of this offside nonsense, no twitter and all that crap.

[pratty]

Basically, the rules are shit and nobody knows what they're doing. Why can't we just go back to before and say that if somebody is in an offside position, they are offside and no goals are given? So much easier to referee that way.

 

I think the new rules allow for common sense to be applied, I don't want to see screamers like that potentially not given because a Newcastle player is down injured by the corner flag in an offside position.

 

It's quite possible here the refs would have applied common sense or at least given the attacking team the benefit of the doubt, but just bottled it under the pressure of Citys' protests, in which case it's the refs at fault rather than the rule.

 

I think as a goalkeeper your focus should be on the ball, if an 'offside' player doesn't block your sight or physically inpede you, then you still have a duty to save the ball, why wouldn't you dive for it? If you think an offside player will block the shot instead but he gets out of the way, then that's your mistake, it's your duty to protect your goal, you can't rely on the opposition players. When correctly applied the rule will protect you if the 'offisde' player is standing where you would need to dive, or if you spill the ball to the 'offside' player.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I think the new rules allow for common sense to be applied, I don't want to see screamers like that potentially not given because a Newcastle player is down injured by the corner flag in an offside position.

 

It's quite possible here the refs would have applied common sense or at least given the attacking team the benefit of the doubt, but just bottled it under the pressure of Citys' protests, in which case it's the refs at fault rather than the rule.

 

I think as a goalkeeper your focus should be on the ball, if an 'offside' player doesn't block your sight or physically inpede you, then you still have a duty to save the ball, why wouldn't you dive for it? If you think an offside player will block the shot instead but he gets out of the way, then that's your mistake, it's your duty to protect your goal, you can't rely on the opposition players. When correctly applied the rule will protect you if the 'offisde' player is standing where you would need to dive, or if you spill the ball to the 'offside' player.

 

Aside from Joe Hart protesting half-heartedly and Vincent Kompany going to the assistant referee (who already seemed to make the decision before then), it didn't seem like the City players were protesting all that much. They didn't hound the officials, at least from what I saw. I agree though that the refs bottled it.

 

Your focus should be on the ball, but you also need to be aware of what's around you. Not saying that Joe Hart was aware of the player standing in front of him, as he didn't seem to see him until the ball was already in the goal. However, personally, I'd be a little distracted if somebody was stood fairly close by in an offside position, whether or not they had touched the ball. This didn't seem to be much of an issue in the past and it's only when these rules started to be tinkered with that we get scenarios like this.

 

It's all well and good having the rules saying one thing, but it's completely and utterly meaningless unless they're enforced correctly...which they weren't today.

[Wii]

I seen the goal on MOTD2. Hart made more effort in his protests than he did to save it. It was a terrific strike and he wouldn't have saved it, Gouffran or no Gouffran.

[Charlie]

The law needs to be clarified. If you're standing in the box you're interfering with play as someone will be thinking about you and should be offside. If you're within 10 yards of the ball you're interfering with play and should be classed as offside.

[Ramar]

That goal has deflected attention away from Yanga-Mbiwa's awful challenge on Nasri. Should have saw red for it.

[Wii]

That w@nkb@g Penaldo won the Ballon D'or award. Scum. I'm only sorry Messi was injured for so long and before that playing through injury. It was a sham to have the voting extended this year and just so happened to include the WC play-offs.

[Fierce_LiNk]

That w@nkb@g Penaldo won the Ballon D'or award. Scum. I'm only sorry Messi was injured for so long and before that playing through injury. It was a sham to have the voting extended this year and just so happened to include the WC play-offs.

 

 

 

[bryanee]

@Wii

 

 

 

 

[Ramar]

That w@nkb@g Penaldo won the Ballon D'or award. Scum. I'm only sorry Messi was injured for so long and before that playing through injury. It was a sham to have the voting extended this year and just so happened to include the WC play-offs.

 

[Jonnas]

These last few posts are amusing me more than I expected

 

Cool seeing him receive the award on my dad's birthday Also, if Ribery really is Platini's favourite (or so they told me), then that's even better!

[nekunando]

Why did football seem so much better when we were kids?

 

I was watching Keane & Viera: Best of Enemies on ITV the other night and reliving a lot of those classic matches involving two of Liverpool's big rivals still evoked those feelings that football seemed so much better back then.. but then wasn't everything

[Dog-amoto]

Erm...I'd have to say no...

 

[Happenstance]

Liverpool had better sort themselves out quickly. Villa are playing well but we aren't helping the situation with all these stupid mistakes.

[Hero-of-Time]

Quality/cheeky pass by Henderson there. Hopefully we will come out better in the second half because we've been pretty poor so far.

[James]

Defence is all over the shop, just haven't got a clue, Gerrard has been none present as he was against stoke. Sooner Sahko, Agger and Flanaghan come back the better.

[dazzybee]

Liverpool are jammy, Vill shave battered them and deserve this. Probably going to be 4-2 liverpool now but I hope Villa can hold out